Government’s allocation of asylum accommodation policy is unlawful – court rules

The High Court has delivered a judgment that could have a major impact on how the UK government treats some of the most vulnerable asylum seekers.

Freedom from Torture and the Helen Bamber Foundation, two leading charities supporting survivors of torture and trafficking, challenged the Home Office’s recent changes to the rules on asylum accommodation. The Court found that the Home Office acted unlawfully in several key respects.

For over 20 years, the Home Office had a practice of consulting these charities before making changes to policies that directly affect their clients—people who have survived torture, trafficking, or other severe trauma. This consultation was not just a courtesy; it was a crucial way to ensure that the needs of highly vulnerable people were properly understood and protected. However, in 2024 and 2025, the Home Office made sweeping changes to the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation Policy without any consultation. These changes removed automatic protections for survivors, such as the right to a single room and to be housed near treatment centres, and shifted the burden onto individuals to prove they needed special accommodation. The charities argued, and the Court agreed, that this was not only unfair but also broke a legitimate expectation built up over decades of collaboration.

The judgment also found that the Home Office failed in its legal duty to consider the impact of these changes on disabled asylum seekers and those with mental health conditions like PTSD. The Equality Impact Assessments carried out by the Home Office were found to be inadequate—they did not properly assess how removing these protections would affect people with serious trauma or disabilities. The Court said that the government cannot simply make policy changes affecting vulnerable groups without properly investigating the likely consequences or consulting those with expertise.

In practice, without the success of this challenge survivors of torture and trafficking were at greater risk of being forced to share rooms or being moved far from the support they need, with little warning and no automatic safeguards. Many in practice found it almost impossible to gather the evidence required to prove their need for safe accommodation, especially given the barriers they already face.

The Court’s decision is a strong reminder that the government must listen to expert organisations, properly consider the needs of vulnerable people, and base its decisions on real evidence. The ruling makes clear that policy changes of this kind cannot be made behind closed doors or without regard for the real-world impact on those most at risk.

The Guardian has written an article about the judgement, which can be viewed here.

The Claimant instructed Megan Smith at Deighton Pierce Glynn working with Sophie Broke, and Shu Shin Luh at Doughty Street Chambers, and Olivia Beach at One Pump Court

For more information or comment, please contact Freedom from Torture or the Helen Bamber Foundation. Their press releases can be found here and here respectively.